Silly Season Rules

[Greg F]

The 2005 Solo 2 season has come and gone, and with it new changes for 2006 have been put forward in an effort to make competition more fair.

Mazda Miata (boosted):
* All boosted Miatas will be required to achieve at least 32 psig of boost for a minimum of 5.0 continuous seconds--demonstrated by an on board data acquisition system with live telemetry to the scoring computer.
* No engine internals, drivetrain or clutch upgrades are permitted.

Mazda Miata (normally aspirated):
* Steve and Rob will not be permitted to run normally aspirated Miatas.

Family Sedan (all):
* A .050 reduction in PAX number will be assigned.
* All drivers wishing to claim points under this new class will be required to run with a full complement of passengers, including a wife (common-law permitted) and toddler in an approved car seat.

Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS:
*Since this a left hand drive car in Canada, all functions not normally operated using the feet, shall henceforth be operated using only the left hand. This includes the gear lever.

Honda Civic:
* All cars will be required to participate with a custom sound system, having total amp and speaker capacity of 50,000 W rms.
* Total number of subwoofers must equal ten or more.
* Battery and alternator upgrades are not permitted.

Honda Insight:
* Rechargeable batteries are no longer permitted.
* Drivers may upgrade to CR2032 lithium batteries without penalty.

Chevrolet Corvette:
* It is felt that the power output of this vehicle poses a danger to marshals, therefore a new rear tire size of P155/R13 is to be mandated. (Note that front tire size shall remain stock.)

Formula SAE:
* For this vehicle to be allowed to compete, a second seat must be added, aft of the driver.
* A standard red howling monkey, dressed in fire suit and SA helmet is to be strapped into the rear seat.

VW (mod class):
* It is expected that Cordeiro will be competing in some other VW for 2006, so this category is expected to cover whatever variant he chooses.
* The vehicle must be fitted with a 50 gallon, recessed type water sprinkler system with a spray coverage of 20 metres in diameter.
* A .030 reduction in PAX value shall be granted if the vehicle is capable of laying down two parallel tracks of ammonium sulphate fertilizer, since this would help later drivers find the racing line.
* Penalties for going off course are yet to be approved by the Governor General of Canada.

Have a great 2006 season!

[Wedge]

That's all good, but you missed one.

Greg F
* Greg F shall be required to perform all prep work on my car during the off season, as he obviously has too much free time on his hands.

[max attack]

Back to the part about Andrew,since he never says what he's up to-what's he up to? :D

I can't imagine him not running the scirocco after all the work so does that imply he's doing some powertrain substitutions?There sounds like a bunch of guys jumping to D-mod-can Andrew be another?

So many questions,yet not many answers. :)

[Greg F]

BMW (all):
* In an effort to make the series take on a more social role, BMW drivers will be required to signal all directional changes. (Training in the use of turn signals will not be provided.)

[miataboi]

Back to the part about Andrew,since he never says what he's up to-what's he up to?

I can't imagine him not running the scirocco after all the work so does that imply he's doing some powertrain substitutions?There sounds like a bunch of guys jumping to D-mod-can Andrew be another?

So many questions,yet not many answers. :)


What is auto-x all about?
TORQUE...

Does VW have a powerplant that makes a lot of this???
:eek:

...I've already said too much...


:D ;) :p

[max attack]

Quite teasing,why all the secrecy(sp?) anyways?.

Anyone that wants know what I'm up to only needs to ask. :D

[miataboi]

Quite teasing,why all the secrecy(sp?) anyways?.

Anyone that wants know what I'm up to only needs to ask. :D


Does Renault or Ferrarri openly publish their redlines, torque numbers or lbs of ballast?

NO!.

:D

[max attack]

Well when either of those companies start building autox cars for total amatures to run for essentially no exposure or purse money/prizes than I say keep it behind closed doors.
Untill than,lets not be so anal and open the damn doors and share a little! :D

[miataboi]

Well when either of those companies start building autox cars for total amatures to run for essentially no exposure or purse money/prizes than I say keep it behind closed doors.
Untill than,lets not be so anal and open the damn doors and share a little! :D


You share your open anal door.... 'cause I know I sure ain't!

That's your business.... behind closed doors!
I don't judge...


no offense... but you just aren't my type...

















I prefer blondes.
:D :D :D :p

[max attack]

Leave it to you to turn a car discussion into something sick,twisted AND gay-guess the sterotypical miata driver shines thu again eh? :D

[Wedge]

Leave it to you to turn a car discussion into something sick,twisted AND gay-guess the sterotypical miata driver shines thu again eh? :D

Don't worry, we'll get him! See new rule #1

[nitrowsb]

:D :D :D :D ..you're a funny man Greg!

[MitS]

What is auto-x all about?
TORQUE...

Does VW have a powerplant that makes a lot of this???
:eek:

...I've already said too much...


:D ;) :p

Car and Driver actually had the cojones to say my car had too much torque.

1) I would argue there is no such thing

2) They did their comparo sans the boost increase offered by a chip

[miataboi]

Car and Driver actually had the cojones to say my car had too much torque.

1) I would argue there is no such thing

2) They did their comparo sans the boost increase offered by a chip


now you're just blowin' smoke up everyone's tailpipe...

:D :p

[J.C.]

Back to the part about Andrew,since he never says what he's up to-what's he up to? :D

I can't imagine him not running the scirocco after all the work so does that imply he's doing some powertrain substitutions?There sounds like a bunch of guys jumping to D-mod-can Andrew be another?

So many questions,yet not many answers. :)


Hmmm.. I will let you know as soon as I know. For the moment we are have a tough time stuffing this under the hood. Thou it comes with an nice scoop and shaker hood :cool:

[max attack]

Hmmm.. I will let you know as soon as I know. For the moment we are have a tough time stuffing this under the hood. Thou it comes with an nice scoop and shaker hood :cool:

Actually it's not that hard,I just hung a smaller version off the side of my 20v yesterday-only took a couple hours to figure out and fab the mounts. ;)

See how easy that was to share.

[miataboi]

Actually it's not that hard,I just hung a smaller version off the side of my 20v yesterday-only took a couple hours to figure out and fab the mounts. ;)

See how easy that was to share.

I'd tell you to go get blown.... but looks like you've already done that!
:eek:



That sucks.

[J.C.]

Actually it's not that hard,I just hung a smaller version off the side of my 20v yesterday-only took a couple hours to figure out and fab the mounts. ;)

See how easy that was to share.


For some reason you seem to think people go out of there way to try and keep stuff a secret from you. Perhaps people still do not know what class they will be running. Andrew is building to SCCA rules and when he figures out where he will be then he will know what direction the drivetrain will go. Last year he ran in a very competitive class at the Nationals in Topeka. His car was 30% overweight approx. 45-140hp under powered and was on slicks in the rain :(

A few people claimed they would be in mod last year and how many of them showed up? Was it because they were trying to mislead everyone or was it because things did not work out?

Personally I would not be surprised, If Andrew ends up running a <2.0L mod car that he runs it in >2.0L mod class here just so he could run in a larger field.

What I do know is that he will run more events in the USA than here.


P.S. This Lotus Euroupa bodied racecar with a Cosworth race engine came in first and you are probably nowhere near him in power even with your supercharger. :eek:

[max attack]

So where did I say I was going to run down to the scca nationals and kick ass?I'm aware of what I'm agaisn't down there-I too am way overweight and underpowered.Also I personally don't really care where or what Andrew runs,I wouldn't mind if he runs d-mod and I'm certainly not afraid to run agaisn't him.
This started as a simple tongue in cheek comment about Adrew being pretty secretive-and that is certainly his choice and fine by me.I opted to go with the oem mr2 supercharger for 2 very simply reasons(neither of them to get away from c-mod)-1st it was very cheap(my main motto)and 2nd I wanted an overall boost in power not attainable staying NA without spending $$$ for minor gains.

I expect to be very competitive btw but on a budget,total cost in the car now is still way under $10k with about $1200 of that spent on rebuilding my engine AND the supercharger install.I seriously doubt many cars with this budget come even remotely close to the performance of mine,I would love to make the trek to the nationals,big chunk of change to go and run less than 6 minutes however.Not any easy choice for me.
I love solo2,but spending around 50 hours towing a car for 6 minutes of driving= :eek:

[J.C.]

So where did I say I was going to run down to the scca nationals and kick ass?
No idea Tom I did not even know you were planning on going down to any SCCA event.

This started as a simple tongue in cheek comment about Adrew being pretty secretive-and that is certainly his choice and fine by me.
That's the thing you do NOT get, he is not being secretive he does not know what class he will be running so it does not matter who it is fine by. I only responded to this "tongue in cheek" comment frankly because it seems every year this comes up.

Actually I think your budget is not really that cheap, unless of course you did none of the work yourself or bought everything new.

P.S. Incase you need it.

http://www.scca.com/_filelibrary/File/2006_solo_rules.pdf

[max attack]

That was my point,I had really no intention of trying an scca event nor even brought it up-yet you go outa you way to point how I couldn't possibly compete agaisn't that lotus.And your right btw,I know my limits but having someone from the sidelines take a shot out of the blue kinda surprised me.
And way under 10 grand is actually closer to about 7k,including the car,several set's of wheels,2 engines,couple clutches and trannies,parts cars,second time around suspension makeover,everything but the rear quarters and roof hand built out of kevlar and 5 years of competiting.
Oh and thanks for the hand holding with the scca rules link,I would never have found it all by myself.

[Greg F]

Ai yai yai. :rolleyes:

[J.C.]

Oh and thanks for the hand holding with the scca rules link,I would never have found it all by myself.

Np.

[max attack]

Ai yai yai. :rolleyes:

Just like when we were kids-"but he started it" :D

[Scracho]

^^^ I just got here and this is some funny shiz... All this talk about torque is starting to scare my Honda :D

[max attack]

Mines still only 1600cc so it's certainly no tq monster.You bringing a honda into the mod mix?.I don't want to ask for details,might get my ears boxed again. ;)

[andrew1984]

:eek:

!

[Scracho]

Mines still only 1600cc so it's certainly no tq monster.You bringing a honda into the mod mix?.I don't want to ask for details,might get my ears boxed again. ;)

Yeah I have a '95 Civic CX that was previously a Solo 2 car in H-Stock. Not sure what class I'll be running... I haven't really decided whether to run stock or modified. Just starting reading through the rules from last year and I'm not sure what catagory I might fall in too. I'm also uncertain as to which engine swaps are legal... :confused:

[Pete@Marcor]

Yeah I have a '95 Civic CX that was previously a Solo 2 car in H-Stock. Not sure what class I'll be running... I haven't really decided whether to run stock or modified.

If you want to win overall, you need to stay Stock. Our rules run a "PAX" system that basically grades everyone against everyone else, based upon what the theoretical speed of your class would be. There is almost no way to optimize a Super Stock or Street Prepared car, so you end up with a crappy factor.

Your car is VERY competitive, as it was good enough to win overall last year. (The driver helped a bit, there too - not me, I might add) :)

If you want to modify your car, realize that you will run up against guys that have figured what the right mods are, and you will have a tougher time in a non-stock class.

[max attack]

Pat Yorke won overall with his SP civic a few years ago,but yes overall is a slim chance in modified.
But having said that,autox'ing a stock civic on sticky V710's doesn't really look like that much fun.

[Pete@Marcor]

The way we score overall now is all based upon PAX. A year ago and previous, it was based upon points gained in class. It was possible to win then, but considerably harder now.

And no fun? I dunno about that. I actually had more of an issue with my car's street performance, not its habits at a slalom or the track.

That being said, I personally prefer to compete in SS. More because of the adjustability and freedoms allowed in SS, as compared to Stock. But, one does not have to have a huge budget, like you would in SP.

[J.C.]

autox'ing a stock civic on sticky V710's doesn't really look like that much fun

I agree it looks a little hairy on a civic but I really wish I had them to auto-x with in 2005 instead of my 712s :(

[Wedge]

I agree it looks a little hairy on a civic

Oh, you couldn't be more wrong! :D

[h-bomb]

I had a TON of fun autoslaloming a stock Civic :D

My only suggestions would be to get the best shocks your budget allows, throw in a set of really grippy front brake pads, adjust the rear shoes a bit tight and then slap on some V710s. Oh, a CG Lock would be a good idea too ;)

[Marsh]

I agree it looks a little hairy on a civic but I really wish I had them to auto-x with in 2005 instead of my 712s :(

It only looks scary. That's the magic of the EG civic. It's the miata of FWD cars, but not until you flop it on it's side and complete compress the outside springs. Once you do that it's almost perfectly ballanced.

And you even get decent tire wear! (my 710's are more worn on the inside then on the outside)

[J.C.]

Well I am glad no one misunderstood me and thought I was taking a shot at some civic driver with an abundance of body hair :p

[max attack]

Well maybe you guy's did have some fun with the stock civics but I'd bet I'd get motion sickness with all that up and down movement! :)

Example,right turn = going down

left turn = going up

Left/right combo's equals going way and way down rapidly.(now where'd I put those graval pills? :D )

[Greg F]

Well maybe you guy's did have some fun with the stock civics but I'd bet I'd get motion sickness with all that up and down movement! :)

Example,right turn = going down

left turn = going up

Left/right combo's equals going way and way down rapidly.(now where'd I put those graval pills? :D )

Yeah, and you'd really have to make sure the fire extinguisher was bolted down properly, eh! :p

[max attack]

Ha ha,actually it wasn't bolted down at all-it was supposed to left with the tools and not behind the drivers seat unseen(untill it was too late :o )

And for the record it flew around side to side,not up and down!. :D

[Greg F]

Ha ha,actually it wasn't bolted down at all-it was supposed to left with the tools and not behind the drivers seat unseen(untill it was too late :o )

And for the record it flew around side to side,not up and down!. :D

Oops, my bad! You're right. Up and down was what you did at the Shootout! :D

[max attack]

Beats up and over eh! ;)

Btw I've only seen the underside of my car up close,whats it look like from a distance. :D

[finboy]

Webster dictionary
Duct = 2 a : a pipe, tube, or channel that conveys a substance

Intercooler = a device for cooling a fluid (as air) between successive heat-generating processes


6.8E Preperation point schedule definitions

Induction system = all points that are exposed to air intake from the air inlet to the orifice of the cylinder head port

Fuel injection system = fuel metering unit, fuel distribution unit, injection nozzle(s) air duct, air throttle


Testing the prep points:

Is a duct an intercooler? perhaps

Is an intercooler a duct? Yes

Is a duct and or intercooler a component of the induction system? Yes

Is a duct and or intercooler a component of the fuel injection system? Yes

Does adding/removing an intercooler increase or decrease the number of venturies/air throttles? (2 points) (4 points) No




In reference to Section 6.5 Super Stock I (iii)

Removal of, or use of any alternate air cleaner assembly is permitted. Cold air induction upstream of the air cleaner is allowed. On vehicles so equipped, the duct between the air flow/mass sensor and the throttle body is considered part of the air cleaner assembly/system.


Decision:

Regardless that the duct material being used is an intercooler and that it serves two functions (channeling air from one source to another, and removes heat from
one source to another)

by definition of 6.5 I (iii) it is a free/authorized modification


The committee’s role should be to verify the facts and issues revolving around
A Competitors vehicle, and if the components added and or removed
Are deemed unauthorized by the prep point schedule.

The spirt of the rules, or intent of the rules should have no bearing in the outcome
Of the ruling.

The committee can not define what the rule makers intent was, when creating
Each section.

The wording is clear in the current rule book, regardless if the rule makers failed
To create the proper rules regarding forced induction.

6 prep points are counted for this vehicle



Recommendations:

Update this section by adding NOT

Section 6.5 Super Stock I (iii)

Removal of, or use of any alternate air cleaner assembly is permitted. Cold air induction upstream of the air cleaner is allowed. On vehicles so equipped, the duct between the air flow/mass sensor and the throttle body is NOT considered part of the air cleaner assembly/system.

Add a definition of Turbo/Supercharger and or Turbo/Supercharger system
Listing its related components.

[h-bomb]

Dave Taira,

Were you a series registered competitor in 2005? NO
Were you at the event in question where the protest was filed? NO
Were you involved in the original decision made by appointed Stewart committee members? NO
Were you at the subsequent appeal hearing? NO
Were you part of the organizing comittee that held the event? NO
Were you part of the organizing committee that organizes the series? NO
Were you one of the parties involved in the protest? NO
Were you one of the parties that wrote the rule book? NO
Were you one of the parties whose task it is to interpret the rule book? NO
Have you claimed that you would rather NOT compete in the Regional series? YES

Do us a favour and butt out.

[J.C.]

Dave Taira,

Were you a series registered competitor in 2005? NO
Were you at the event in question where the protest was filed? NO
Were you involved in the original decision made by appointed Stewart committee members? NO
Were you at the subsequent appeal hearing? NO
Were you part of the organizing comittee that held the event? NO
Were you part of the organizing committee that organizes the series? NO
Were you one of the parties involved in the protest? NO
Were you one of the parties that wrote the rule book? NO
Were you one of the parties whose task it is to interpret the rule book? NO
Have you claimed that you would rather NOT compete in the Regional series? YES

Do us a favour and butt out.

I did not interpret Dave's post as a comment but rather a statement of what the findings were as a result of a protest.
I don't see why just because he did not compete in the regionals has anything to do with his concern for solo II rules. For all we know he may compete in the future and furthermore the ruleset affects more than just regional autocrossing.
What I don't understand is why he posted it on this thread?

[h-bomb]

I did not interpret Dave's post as a comment but rather a statement of what the findings were as a result of a protest.
I don't see why just because he did not compete in the regionals has anything to do with his concern for solo II rules. For all we know he may compete in the future and furthermore the ruleset affects more than just regional autocrossing.
What I don't understand is why he posted it on this thread?

Re-read his post more carefully.

[finboy]

Reason why I posted on here is because of this request:

01-12-2006, 09:27 PM

h-bomb
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 37

Re: What I learned at HADA Regional - # 9

Can you guys stop using the WIL at HADA #9 thread?

I don't want people to associate all this talk with my event even if all the hubbaloo started there.

Thanks.



This is a “silly thread” and I didn’t want to post any hubbaloo on the other thread in respect to H-Bomb

Hanif.. if you don't care about my input do what the others do, and use the ignore feature

the regional series is supposed to be taken more seriously..

for club events.. people show up for fun and social reasons.. some take the club series more serious than the regional series..

people leave Club events for various reasons..
family, other interests, or they just don't love cone hunting like others

people leave the Regional series, with a bad taste in their mouth
not for the same reasons.. but because its supposed to be as serious as it can get for solo II in our area

the regional series will only grow, with the massive success and support from the clubs..

the way it is was last year, you had to be EVENT REGISTERED, or a hosting club member to participate

excellent way to grow the sport!!



I read and re-read the protest, and the appeal..

and went over the prep point schedule, and the Super stock mods



what part of my post is inaccurate?

what section of the rule book did i quote wrong?

the driver asked the Chief Scrutineer if the modification met the
rule book.


im interested in your reply

[finboy]

Dave Taira,

Were you a series registered competitor in 2005? NO
Were you at the event in question where the protest was filed? NO
Were you involved in the original decision made by appointed Stewart committee members? NO
Were you at the subsequent appeal hearing? NO
Were you part of the organizing comittee that held the event? NO
Were you part of the organizing committee that organizes the series? NO
Were you one of the parties involved in the protest? NO
Were you one of the parties that wrote the rule book? NO
Were you one of the parties whose task it is to interpret the rule book? NO
Have you claimed that you would rather NOT compete in the Regional series? YES

Do us a favour and butt out.


in response:

do I care how the sport is being managed?
do I care if I think it was the right ruling??
am I interested in one of the solo II positions in the very near future???
do I think the committe made gross errors????
do I have a membership with a CASC club?????
do I think changes need to be made????
is it appropriate for anyone to post anyones full names???


yes

[finboy]

what happened to the protests/appeal on the website?

[Greg F]

Finboy, you should have started your own thread if you wanted anyone to take you seriously, since this one was started as a joke.

[thekid]

the driver asked the Chief Scrutineer if the modification met the
rule book.

Chief Scruitneers job is to scrutineer the saftey of participating vehicles, not interpret the rules. Last time I checked intercoolers/ducts/etc, aren't saftey items.

[finboy]

Chief Scruitneers job is to scrutineer the saftey of participating vehicles, not interpret the rules. Last time I checked intercoolers/ducts/etc, aren't saftey items.


hi Brian..

yes they are involved in safety items (see 3.2 General standards A & B)

then check out 4.3 K regarding the inpound and inspection of a vehicle and who is responsible for verifying a car

page 4-7 and 4-8

http://www.solo2ontario.com/info/documents/CASC-OR-2005-Rulebook-Final.pdf


what is your opinion?

am I incorrect???

[thekid]

werd! seems that the rule books has some sections that need to be 'updated' to avoid future confusion on the matter...

[Navigator]

Unfortunatly they said as per paragraph 1 of the rule book … "Questions concerning rules clarifications should be directed to the CASC-OR Solo 2 Director."

During my hearing I was told that any and all questions with regards to the series, classing, ponts, etc. should have been directed to the Series Director. As only he could have issued a proper (validated) response. That being said make sure you have a written response to any classing question for 2006 or you may find yourself in the same position going into the last event of the season.

[h-bomb]

Hanif.. if you don't care about my input do what the others do, and use the ignore feature

done

[finboy]

Unfortunatly they said as per paragraph 1 of the rule book … "Questions concerning rules clarifications should be directed to the CASC-OR Solo 2 Director."

During my hearing I was told that any and all questions with regards to the series, classing, ponts, etc. should have been directed to the Series Director. As only he could have issued a proper (validated) response. That being said make sure you have a written response to any classing question for 2006 or you may find yourself in the same position going into the last event of the season.

Regarding classes, prep points or rules..

It is unreasonable and unrealistic for the CASC-OR representative to receive every single question involved to solo II. There are reasons why the Rule books are put on line, and printed out each year.

In many cases, people inquire about very trivial things:
- what tire pressures should I use,
- what class am I in with these mods
- do I need a hemet
- how much wear and tear will my car is realistic
etc.. etc..

*if that is the case, then every single question answered online, in a conversation at an event NOT answered by the CASC-OR representative has zero merit*

In reference to section 11 Appendix D (CASC-OR Solo II committee)

Ivano did speak to one of the officials whose name is listed

It doesn’t however specify on that page, or anywhere in the rule book who the CASC-OR representative IS, so it is reasonable to find that he did speak to a member on the CASC-OR committee for validation, which should be sufficient.


If we were to follow the ruling given to Ivano, then there would be no need for protests, or any type of prep point Scrutineering.

Eg:
At an event, a competitor could simply go to the CASC-OR representative, and ask
Him or her a question about a certain vehicle, and verify that that competitor verified
That these modifications were legal.

If there was no inquiry in advance, the car is illegal period.

(see how unreasonable, and silly that is??)


The first paragraph of then 2005 rule book states this. (Page ii of the Rule book)

“Competitors are reminded that participation in any form of motor sport involves……….
Though the safety standards are adequate for this type of sport, it is ultimately the competitor’s responsibility to ensure his/her own safety and the safety of those around.
Modification allowances defined in the CASC-OR rules may require installation/fabrication by qualified individuals. If you lack the tools or knowledge to attempt such modifications please consult those who have the expertise to properly modify your vehicle. CASC-OR assumes no responsibility or liability for any results attained by consulting this rulebook. Due to the passage of time, these rules and regulations will be subject to change. Competitors are warned that they should check with their local CASC-OR representative before using this book to prepare a vehicle for the 2005 season.”

Please read the last sentence.

“Competitors are warned that they should check with their local CASC-OR representative before using this rule book to prepare a vehicle for the 2005 season”

WARNED not MUST check.. meaning it’s a suggestion, not a REQUIREMENT

The way the current rules are, the ONUS is on the owner/driver at any given time, regarding the way they prep their vehicle.

The ONUS is NOT up to them, to approach the CASC-OR representative.

In reference to the two sections below of the rule book, the driver in question did nothing
Illegal, or improper with regards to literal preparation and fair competition


6 CAR PREPERATION AND GUIDELINES

6.1 G Burden of Proof (page 6-4)

and

6.2 D Vehicle Modification and Preparation (6-6)

Simply put, if another competitor has questions about another vehicle, it is up to the challenging competitor to submit a protest, and let the process go from there


I am not slaming the committee, or those involved, I just honestly believe attention is needed On how the committee makes their decision.

The process should be simple and clean.

Challenger states which sections are in question
Defendant provides proof, using the rule book, his/her factory shop manual and any other documents needed.

The Committee, simply views the information, and makes their soul decision on that.

The Recommendations are nice, but should be secondary to the issue at hand.

I don’t understand this.. for everyone to play fair.. the rule book has to be taken literally.

The rules can be considered directions and or answers to “why” questions.

It’s the role of the rule book committee should be to keep things fair, current and consistent. We can only guess their intent while they wrote them, but the focus should be more on following the rule book literally.. then there are less grey areas, or questions.

If the recommendations made by the committee are received and changes made. The CASC-OR rule makers should then make an amendment to the rules and post the bulletin.

Instead of viewing the facts and issues involved, it appears that the committee has attempted to rule on things beyond the main issue at hand.

An update of this section is needed. (by simply adding NOT)

Section 6.5 Super Stock I (iii)

Removal of, or use of any alternate air cleaner assembly is permitted. Cold air induction upstream of the air cleaner is allowed. On vehicles so equipped, the duct between the air flow/mass sensor and the throttle body is NOT considered part of the air cleaner assembly/system.

After any process, if both sides do not agree with the outcome.. it just leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth.

I think everyone would agree this was an unusual test of the rule book, and for an example like this, I would suggest the decision be like this.


The car in question should be found LEGAL with 6 prep points for that event. However, be advised that it will be recommended that section 6.5 (iii) of superstock be updated to reflect the protest and findings of this unusual protest.
Based in reference to page ii “Due to the passage of time, these rules and regulations will be subject to change”

So the following year/event that modification would be illegal.

I think all those involved would find that fair and reasonable

[finboy]

done


can someone other than Hanif Prejmi reply to my request

what section(s) of the rule book have I quoted that is incorrect?


please advise..

[tanney]

yes they are involved in safety items (see 3.2 General standards A & B)

then check out 4.3 K regarding the inpound and inspection of a vehicle and who is responsible for verifying a car

page 4-7 and 4-8

An update of this section is needed. (by simply adding NOT)

Section 6.5 Super Stock I (iii)

Removal of, or use of any alternate air cleaner assembly is permitted. Cold air induction upstream of the air cleaner is allowed. On vehicles so equipped, the duct between the air flow/mass sensor and the throttle body is NOT considered part of the air cleaner assembly/system.

After any process, if both sides do not agree with the outcome.. it just leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth.

I think everyone would agree this was an unusual test of the rule book, and for an example like this, I would suggest the decision be like this.

Thank you. These, and a couple of your other comments in the last few posts, are useful input that will be taken into consideration for this years rule book. Most were also discussed at the workshop in November as well.....

[gatherer]

Dave,

you are correct in that a competitor should check but isn't forced to check with a CASC-OR representative.

however you have to take into account that each person who is a CASC-OR representative has different roles.

for example if I wanted to unbolt my battery so that uit wasn't tied down, thats a safety concern and I should check with the Chief Scrunteer if I wasn't sure of the rules in regards to battery tie downs.

However for car prep, and the rules in regards to car prep only the director can speak as to the interpretation of those rules, not the scrunteer, whose job it is only to look at safety concerns/ items.

An example of this is my side exit exhuast. the rules state something along of "the exhuast system has to exit behind the driver" well my exit point that I wanted to have was technically behind the back of the driver on the passenger side. I knew before I got it made it would cost 600 dollars to get it done. Well before I spent any money I asked the question of the director as to whether or not my selected exit point is considered "behind the driver" I got the clarification I needed and went about the install.

there is more to the rules then just the words in the book. the intent of the rules is also very important.

[finboy]

Hello Jason..

Yes I totally agree that INTENT should be very very very important when it comes to creating the rules and sections in the rule book.

However.. after that, the rules should be taken literally.. Following this, it is very easy for competitors to follow the rules, and the protest committee members to make a finding if a modification is allowed/authorized or an illegal unauthorized modification.

People do not like surprises… if things are consistent, and a ruling is made using the rule book and being read in its literal text.

What else can both sides ask for? I might be totally wrong here.. but show me a sport, any sport whether it be professional or amateur when a penality is called.. and the officials base their decision on the intent of the rules??

Some poor examples
e.g. Football.. offside (offensive lineman gets stung by a bee and moves on the line)
e.g. Baseball.. balk (how many times is it intentional?)



1 Q: Where in the rule book does it say WHO the CASC-OR rep is?

A: Like I posted in the above… the rule book only shows who’s who on the CASC-OR committee, it does NOT list who the REPRESENTITIVE(S) is/are anywhere.

My point here is… Does the CASC-OR rep need to hear every single inquiry to make things legit?

Gawd I hope not….

If an individual wants to or not… it’s their choice to get clarification from an official

That’s why there’s a protest procedure in place.

Q2: What’s the difference between scrutineering for safety vs. scrutineering for prep-points

A: tons!!! But the Chief Scrutineer does get involved in BOTH safety and prep points
See post #51 in reply to Brian’s comment

Q3: is it mandatory for a competitor to seek approval prior to the modifications to their vehicle in regards to a safety related item OR prep-point modification in the rule book?

A: NO.. it is the sole responsibility of the driver/owner/competitor
(see the first paragraph page ii of the 2005 rule book)


If your exhaust example is in reference the Stock Category/Engine drive train
Section 6.3 I iv it clearly states:

-manifold can not be touched
-emission controls can not be touched
-has to terminate behind the driver
-heat sheilds may not be removed
-comply with noise limits

to me it simply does not matter which side it terminates on.. as long
as it terminates BEHIND the driver.. pretty black and white isn't it?

[13inches]

http://www.wpg-autox.org/info/CarClassingWorksheet.pdf

Added or changed intercooler +2 in SS and SP and MOD

This guideline is based on the WCMA and CNAC 2005 rules

[gatherer]

ohhh well Dave, we agree on somethings and disagree on others such is life.

I agree that that section of the rule book needs a re-write however I would leave it alone and just add the line "This does not allow for the addition of an intercooler" as I think that would be the simpliest way of solving it without causing issues for other cars.

for example with your version of the re-write cars like the 6th generation civic (96 to 2000 models) wouldn't be able to add an intake system on since those cars have a mass air flow sensor on the air cleaner assembly and with your re-wirte that piping between the mass air flow sensor and the throttle body isn't changable.

(I used the civic as an example because I'm more familar with that car then any other although I do suspect that there are other cars in the same boat.)

Anyways as for the exit behind the driver part, your right it does seem pretty black and white but when I first looked at it I thought it could be read either as "must exit from the rear of the car" or it could of been read as "must exit at a point behind the driver, anywhere behind the driver" which is really why I asked to make sure the intent of the rule wasn't the first one.

[Pete@Marcor]

Webster dictionary
Duct = 2 a : a pipe, tube, or channel that conveys a substance

Intercooler = a device for cooling a fluid (as air) between successive heat-generating processes

Thanks. The Stewards use it, too.

Testing the prep points:

Is a duct an intercooler? perhaps

Is an intercooler a duct? Yes

Is a duct and or intercooler a component of the induction system? Yes

Is a duct and or intercooler a component of the fuel injection system? Yes

Does adding/removing an intercooler increase or decrease the number of venturies/air throttles? (2 points) (4 points) No

By this method of reading what a particular rule means, I can only assume that a tubocharger and its associated parts would only cost 2 points at maximum. Yes, turbos are listed elsewhere in the point prep schedule, but so is the addition of an intercooler (under any other unauthorized mods....). After all, turbos convey the air that is passing through them. Sure, they happen to compress the air that passes through them, but that is not really their only purpose. So, it should be free. At least by this thought process.

Was the mod a creative one? Sure. I think that the basic decision came down to whether or not the intercooler's main function was to duct air or to cool it. It was the decision of the group of stewards that this was not so. It was the appeal board's decision to agree. Since you obviously do not agree, then you should do/should have done something about it. Since it is too late for the appeal, then why not send the appropriate letters to our representative on the CNAC committee? If you do not get an adequate answer, send a request to the CNAC. If you don't do these things, it would be similar to me about complaining about a government that you did not vote for or against.

On another note, if ANY competitor has a question about the number of points he is going to be charged for a mod, should he not ask the person who has the most access to those "intents"? If you were to do a mod, and you felt you were right, but it might be questionable, would you not ask the Solo Director for guidance in the number of points that would end up getting charged?

The committee’s role should be to verify the facts and issues revolving around A Competitors vehicle, and if the components added and or removed Are deemed unauthorized by the prep point schedule.

The spirt of the rules, or intent of the rules should have no bearing in the outcome Of the ruling.

The committee can not define what the rule makers intent was, when creating
Each section.

The wording is clear in the current rule book, regardless if the rule makers failed
To create the proper rules regarding forced induction.

6 prep points are counted for this vehicle

Neither the stewards nor the appeal board considered the "intent" of what the rulebook authors were thinking. The rulebook is very explicit. If you change the duct, it is free. If you put something in there that is not a duct, then you get charged the appropriate points.

Dave, I agree that any potential competitor should be allowed to inquire about rules, and they way that they are interpreted. However, I don't see the point of dragging this out. If you disagree with anyone's decision in this process, feel free to do something constructive about it. How about even vounteering to be the Solo Director?

[AlienDNA]

I might be totally wrong here.. but show me a sport, any sport whether it be professional or amateur when a penality is called.. and the officials base their decision on the intent of the rules??

Some poor examples
e.g. Football.. offside (offensive lineman gets stung by a bee and moves on the line)


Technically speaking, an offensive lineman moving before the snap of the ball would be charged with false start or illegal procedure. An offensive lineman would only be charged with offside if they were lined up and motionless in the neutral zone.

A defensive lineman, however, can be charged with offside if they are in the neutral zone without making contact at the snap of the ball. If they make contact, they would be charged with encroachment.

So a bee could make a defensive lineman offside, but not an offensive lineman, unless the offensive lineman lined up offside to avoid a bee.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled autocross rules debate... :D

[holliko]

Technically speaking, an offensive lineman moving before the snap of the ball would be charged with false start or illegal procedure. An offensive lineman would only be charged with offside if they were lined up and motionless in the neutral zone.

A defensive lineman, however, can be charged with offside if they are in the neutral zone without making contact at the snap of the ball. If they make contact, they would be charged with encroachment.

So a bee could make a defensive lineman offside, but not an offensive lineman, unless the offensive lineman lined up offside to avoid a bee.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled autocross rules debate... :D

LOL LOL LOL...

[finboy]

ohhh well Dave, we agree on somethings and disagree on others such is life.

I agree that that section of the rule book needs a re-write however I would leave it alone and just add the line "This does not allow for the addition of an intercooler" as I think that would be the simpliest way of solving it without causing issues for other cars.

for example with your version of the re-write cars like the 6th generation civic (96 to 2000 models) wouldn't be able to add an intake system on since those cars have a mass air flow sensor on the air cleaner assembly and with your re-wirte that piping between the mass air flow sensor and the throttle body isn't changable.

(I used the civic as an example because I'm more familar with that car then any other although I do suspect that there are other cars in the same boat.)





totally kewl Jason.. people can agree to disagree and still respect each other to some extent.

I was under the impression a lot of the aftermarket cold air intakes, basically
started at the stock location of the airflow/MAS sensor and continued forward from there.

(you'd pull the air cleaner assembly.. and attach a 'duct' that would lengthen the run pulling cold air from a different area)

[when suggesting to add NOT to the existing section]

perhaps it depends on the manufacture then..

some might start where the stock airflow/mas sensor is.. and go forward from there

vs.

a cold air intake system, that starts at the enterance to the throttle body
and goes forward from there.

if this is the case where there are several types of cold air induction systems, then some would be legal and others illegal.

OR use this as a solution

update the super stock definition to something like this

Section 6.5 Super Stock I (iii)

Removal of, or use of any alternate air cleaner assembly is permitted. Cold air induction upstream of the air cleaner is allowed. On vehicles so equipped, aftermarket cold air induction kits that have duct work starting from the throttle body forward can be used provided that it serves no other purpose than shortening or increasing the duct between the air flow/mass sensor and air cleaner assembly.

[gatherer]

I like that wording... the inclusion of "serves no other purpose" I think makes things clearly defined, and allows for those situations where it's impossible to replace the air cleaner assembly without replacing the duct work between the mass air flow sensor and the Throttle body.

[finboy]

Neither the stewards nor the appeal board considered the "intent" of what the rulebook authors were thinking. The rulebook is very explicit. If you change the duct, it is free. If you put something in there that is not a duct, then you get charged the appropriate points.

Pete.. IF the stewards and appeal committees did take the literal text meaning of
6.5 I (iii) of the Super Stock section then the IC would have passed the Prep-point test.

Section 6.5 Super Stock I (iii)

Removal of, or use of any alternate air cleaner assembly is permitted. Cold air induction upstream of the air cleaner is allowed. On vehicles so equipped, the duct between the air flow/mass sensor and the throttle body is considered part of the air cleaner assembly/system.

these are the requirements:
-removal and or ANY ALTERNATE air cleaner assembly is permitted
-everything between the throttle body to the air cleaner assembly/system is FREE (.."considered PART of the air cleaner assembly/system'")



Quote:
Originally Posted by finboy
Testing the prep points:

Is a duct an intercooler? perhaps

Is an intercooler a duct? Yes

Is a duct and or intercooler a component of the induction system? Yes

Is a duct and or intercooler a component of the fuel injection system? Yes

Does adding/removing an intercooler increase or decrease the number of venturies/air throttles? (2 points) (4 points) No



By this method of reading what a particular rule means, I can only assume that a tubocharger and its associated parts would only cost 2 points at maximum. Yes, turbos are listed elsewhere in the point prep schedule, but so is the addition of an intercooler (under any other unauthorized mods....)......

-the issue here is section 6.5 I (iii) CLEARLY STATES that removal or any other air cleaner assembly/system and its duct work is FREE

reviewing the rule book further to section 6.8 Preparation Point Schedule definitions in section E for *induction system* AND *fuel injection system*

Section 6.5 I (iii) would then trump the prep-points because of the definitions given.



-adding a turbo charger and or its related components is a totally different



**if the current wording wasn't so FREE then yes the prep-point schedule
would work**

**if the current definition of air cleaner assembly was cleaned up, adding an IC in place of the stock duct work, he would be hit with 2 points according to the last section of the prep point schedule MODIFICATIONS AND OR SUBSTITUTION OF ANY OR ALL EXTERNAL COMPONENTS AND OR ACCESSORIES.**



**Any modifications/substitutions of turbo chargers***= needs to be updated (add supercharger)

or add

**any modifications/substitutions to turbo chargers(s)/supercharger(s)
components ###points**




Dave, I agree that any potential competitor should be allowed to inquire about rules, and they way that they are interpreted. However, I don't see the point of dragging this out. If you disagree with anyone's decision in this process, feel free to do something constructive about it. How about even vounteering to be the Solo Director?

-the only reason why i'm "dragging this out" is because maybe a lot of people
are content with the ruling and the process.. but there are people who don't think the process/system worked proplerly. (some are directly involved, and others have been instrumental so they can't post.. i'm the unusual one having no ties or direct invovement that is able to create friendly discussions. some support the disscusions others don't want to hear it at all)

Regardless.. the results are official, the season is over and the awards have been given out and received. I'm all for deal with it and move on...BUT is there that much harm/damage to discuss or give a different view on things?

Some would like a better outcome to gain closure.



-some already know that I am interested in one of the positions for the next term (its just a matter of getting a team together to manage it, i have no desire to put in "20-40hours" weekS for the next two years)

we'll see how that goes

[tanney]

Dave, since I have been involved in the sport (1999) and until the 2005 season, there has only been one protest that I have been aware of and that was at the sole event I attended in 1999 (my first regional, if you remember correctly I asked you for some advise due to me spinning out entering the carosel (sp) at Powell Track, advise which you freely gave) and since I was there ONLY to have fun, I did not pay any attention. Actually I avoided it because I wasn't interested in getting involved to any degree. I didn't even read the protest.....

When the firt protest happened last year, it was an issue that I had never had to deal with. Since one of my decisions as the Solo 2 Director was being protested, I was (for obvious reasons) not directly involved with the Protest Committee decision and was just as surprised by the outcome as the protester was. I excepted the decision and moved on with my life and the series. This protest had nothing to do with another competitor or their vehicle.

The second protest and then appeal made me (an others) realize that the lack of protests in the recent past had indeed left some gaps in the procedures. Since I, or the stewards, had never had to deal with a protest and appeal between competitors and the lack of GCRs at the event lead to some "issues" with the procedures.

Recommendations were issued by both proceedings and they were again discussed at the workshop in November and some, if not all will be implemented into the 2006 rule book.

I admit that I, as the Solo 2 Director, made some mistakes in dealing with these issues, as did almost all the clubs, the organizers, and the rule book does need some specifics added to deal with these "issues" in the future. For that reason, additions and clarifications will be made to the rule book and a Series Steward will be added so there is consistancy with any proceedings in the future. There will be documents with formats to be followed when preparing the desicions.

Now is not the time to dwell on these overly discussed "issues". It is time to move ahead and plan for the future, trying to put things in place to make sure that these are no longer issues.

If you are serious about running for the Solo 2 Directorship in the future, I am still seeking someone to fill the postition as Deputy Solo 2 Director, a position created to "groom" a potential Solo 2 Director. Feel free to volunteer for the position, you may end up being the Solo 2 Director sooner rather than later.....

[Pete@Marcor]

these are the requirements:
-removal and or ANY ALTERNATE air cleaner assembly is permitted
-everything between the throttle body to the air cleaner assembly/system is FREE (.."considered PART of the air cleaner assembly/system'")

Sorry, but I disagree. The rule says the DUCT between the air flow/mass sensor and TB may be changed. It does not say everything between the two parts is free. Just because you define an intercooler as a duct does not make it so. If it were primarily a duct, it would be called a duct. Its primary job is to cool the air passing through it (being ducted). Just because it does that function (ducting), does not make it a duct. Would a throttle body be considered a duct? No. It has another primary job, besides simply channeling or conveying that substance. The same deal with the intercooler. Its primary job is something besides the ducting; hence it has a different name.




-the issue here is section 6.5 I (iii) CLEARLY STATES that removal or any other air cleaner assembly/system and its duct work is FREE

reviewing the rule book further to section 6.8 Preparation Point Schedule definitions in section E for *induction system* AND *fuel injection system*

Section 6.5 I (iii) would then trump the prep-points because of the definitions given.

Again, the DUCT is free. Not everything that does a ducting job, besides its primary function. Can I assume that the intercooler could be called a boost controller? Since what an intercooler does is lower the temperature of the air, it will also change the boost level of that air that is passing through it. (Charles’ Law and Boyles’ Law)


-the only reason why i'm "dragging this out" is because maybe a lot of people
are content with the ruling and the process.. but there are people who don't think the process/system worked proplerly. (some are directly involved, and others have been instrumental so they can't post.. i'm the unusual one having no ties or direct invovement that is able to create friendly discussions. some support the disscusions others don't want to hear it at all)

Regardless.. the results are official, the season is over and the awards have been given out and received. I'm all for deal with it and move on...BUT is there that much harm/damage to discuss or give a different view on things?

Some would like a better outcome to gain closure.

What kind of “better” outcome would you like or expect to happen? As you say, the results are official. What can be done at this point? The results are not going to be overturned. Could we possibly tighten up the rulebook listing? I suppose, but I think that there are some better ways of initiating those changes than telling the whole process that they were wrong. Not the best way to get people to listen to you.
And, is there harm? Actually, I think that all of this internal bickering gives our sport an image of immaturity from other disciplines in the motorsports world. A decision has been handed down that was accepted by a competitor. He had appealed it, but after his appeal was rejected, he accepted the decision. If he did not, he should have appealed it further. Do I think the he would have gotten anywhere? No, not really, but at that point, it would have been in someone else’s court. And, he fully had the right to continue to appeal. But seriously, if someone is going to assume a modification that they do is legal, without asking the people who will be ruling on it, IF there is a protest, then there is a bit of responsibility due to be placed on that person’s shoulders.

[finboy]

Sorry, but I disagree. The rule says the DUCT between the air flow/mass sensor and TB may be changed. It does not say everything between the two parts is free.

you'd be 100% right if we were talking about the Stock Vehicles section 6.3 I (iii)

But for Super Stock.. it is authorized


Break down the section backwards (it still means the same thing, regardless
if you read it forwards.. or backwards)


Section 6.5 Super Stock I (iii)

Removal of, or use of any alternate air cleaner assembly is permitted. Cold air induction ducting upstream of the air cleaner is allowed. On vehicles so equipped, the duct between the air flow/mass sensor and the throttle body is considered part of the air cleaner assembly/system.


On vehicles so equipped, the duct between the air flow/mass sensor and the throttle body is considered part of the air cleaner assembly/system.
(so its all considered as one unit)

Removal of, or use of any alternate air cleaner assembly is permitted.
(you can remove modify or use an alternate assembly)

Soon as it says "the duct between the airflow/mass sensor and the throttle
body is CONSIDERED PART of the air cleaner assembly/system.. it opened the door for the placement of an IC ... that's the kicker part




Just because you define an intercooler as a duct does not make it so. If it were primarily a duct, it would be called a duct. Its primary job is to cool the air passing through it (being ducted). Just because it does that function (ducting), does not make it a duct.

you're 100% right.. but because of the prep point definitions in 6.8 E listed refering to
*induction system* and *fuel injection system* it (the IC) meets the requirements of both definitions

BUT.. adding the IC does not increase (2 points) or decrease (4 points) the air venturies/air throttles (if it wasn't for the air venturies/air throttle thing this wouldn't work)




Would a throttle body be considered a duct? No. It has another primary job, besides simply channeling or conveying that substance.

IF a smaller or larger throttle body was installed the vehicle would be hit
with an unauthorized external modification. BUT because for the Super Stock section you can modify the "air cleaner assembly" starting at the throttle body..forward ... its FREE




The same deal with the intercooler. Its primary job is something besides the ducting; hence it has a different name.

the reason why it wouldn't fall into an unauthorized modification (6.8 E last section of the page) is because it states what you CAN do with the air cleaner assembly for Super Stock




But seriously, if someone is going to assume a modification that they do is legal, without asking the people who will be ruling on it, IF there is a protest, then there is a bit of responsibility due to be placed on that person’s shoulders.

From my understanding the defendant didn't assume anything.
- he consulted with his peers
- he read the rule book
- went one step further and got verification from a CASC-OR official committe member, not only a member.. BUT one who happens to be the CHIEF Scrutineer for the Regional Series
- he went beyond what is required by him as a competitor in the Regional
Series

* there is no requirement by a competitor that anything be verified by anyone at any given time (see the first paragraph of the rule book page ii ) *

point being.. he could have got verification, and still be protested



dave

ps on a side note.. if he did keep the stock duct work, and added water injection

1) the water injection would meet the definition of *induction system*

BUT

2) water injection would NOT meet the definition of *fuel injection system* in the prep-points

since you have to meet BOTH definitions.. its an unauthorized modification

[finboy]

If you are serious about running for the Solo 2 Directorship in the future, I am still seeking someone to fill the postition as Deputy Solo 2 Director, a position created to "groom" a potential Solo 2 Director. Feel free to volunteer for the position, you may end up being the Solo 2 Director sooner rather than later.....

Hey Wes..

My intentions were to participate in the Regional Series for 2006, and get involved as a participant and volunteer to be part of the Regional Committee.

I've only seen a tenative schedule, and have no idea how many events I can attend.

If the 2006 schedule/scoring resembles anything like 2005 having 10 events
Proximity will be a challenge for me.

Regardless.. I would still like to get involved behind the scenes for 2006 so I can guestimate how much I have to plan for.

If you can use me on the solo committee, please pm/email or phone me


dave

[Pete@Marcor]

Soon as it says "the duct between the airflow/mass sensor and the throttle
body is CONSIDERED PART of the air cleaner assembly/system.. it opened the door for the placement of an IC ... that's the kicker part


It might be a kicker, but an Intercooler is NOT a duct. THAT is the important part. That line says you may change the duct to another cut, or modify it. It does not say that you may install an Intercooler in the place of a duct.

you're 100% right.. but because of the prep point definitions in 6.8 E listed refering to
*induction system* and *fuel injection system* it (the IC) meets the requirements of both definitions

BUT.. adding the IC does not increase (2 points) or decrease (4 points) the air venturies/air throttles (if it wasn't for the air venturies/air throttle thing this wouldn't work)

Ok, hold on. I agree totally that an Intercooler is part of the induction system. However, the authorized mod section does not say you can modify the induction system. It says you may use any alternate air cleaner assembly. It also says that cold air induction is allowed. The last sentence in that authorized mod section 6.5.I.iii states that “the DUCT between the mass/airflow sensor and the throttle body is considered part of the air cleaner assembly.”

What 2 (?) requirements are you talking about?


From my understanding the defendant didn't assume anything.
- he consulted with his peers
- he read the rule book
- went one step further and got verification from a CASC-OR official committe member, not only a member.. BUT one who happens to be the CHIEF Scrutineer for the Regional Series
- he went beyond what is required by him as a competitor in the Regional
Series

* there is no requirement by a competitor that anything be verified by anyone at any given time (see the first paragraph of the rule book page ii ) *

point being.. he could have got verification, and still be protested

If you do read that first paragraph again, it states that they “should check with their local CASC-OR representative….”. Also, in the FIRST line of the prep section 1., it states that any “questions concerning rules clarifications should be directed to the CASC-OR Solo 2 Director.” An offending competitor could ask his peers – 150 of them, if he felt so inclined, but the ONE person he would need to ask would be the Solo Director. That did not happen. When I asked the Solo Director after the protest had been tabled, I was told that mine was the first such request.
This ignores that fact that most of the “peers” you mention that they did not agree with his interpretation of the rules. The Chief Scrutineer’s job is unrelated to points and prep levels. He had no official position to rule on a car mod, unless it related to safety. At that point, his responsibility would be restricted to whether or not the mod was safe or not.

[finboy]

It might be a kicker, but an Intercooler is NOT a duct. THAT is the important part. That line says you may change the duct to another cut, or modify it. It does not say that you may install an Intercooler in the place of a duct.

Q1) would you agree that you are authorized do this?
a) remove the air cleaner assembly
b) modify the air cleaner assembly

A: yes

Q2) in this definition, does the "air cleaner assembly" include
everything between the throttle body to the air flow/mass sensor

A: yes

Q3) Do you agree by reference given in 6.5 I (iii)
that you can remove/cut/modify the duct work between
the throttle body and the air flow/mass sensor?

A: yes

Q4) can you modify/change the throttle body or the air flow/mass sensor?

A: no

Q5) with vehicles so equipped, does the rule book state what items
you can swap in place of the duct work between the throttle body to the
air flow/mass sensor?

A: nope


since you are authorized to modifiy the "air cleaner assembly" adding an
intercooler is allowed.

Section 6.5 Super Stock I (iii)

Removal of, or use of any alternate air cleaner assembly is permitted. Cold air induction ducting upstream of the air cleaner is allowed. On vehicles so equipped, the duct between the air flow/mass sensor and the throttle body is considered part of the air cleaner assembly/system.




Ok, hold on. I agree totally that an Intercooler is part of the induction system. However, the authorized mod section does not say you can modify the induction system. It says you may use any alternate air cleaner assembly. It also says that cold air induction is allowed. The last sentence in that authorized mod section 6.5.I.iii states that “the DUCT between the mass/airflow sensor and the throttle body is considered part of the air cleaner assembly.”

What 2 (?) requirements are you talking about?


The two requirements I'm refering to is in reference to sec 6.8 E of the Prep schedule (page 6-18)

the definition of *induction system* = all points exposed to air intake from the
air inlet to the orifice of the cylinder head port face

the definition of *fuel injection system* = fuel metering unit, fuel distribution unit, injection nozzle(s), air duct, air throttle

With reference to "air cleaner assembly" in SS and
because you are authorized to remove/modify the "air cleaner assembly"
and the IC falls in the definitions of BOTH *systems* and does NOT increase or decrease the number of venturies/air throttles (2 or 4 prep points)

The prep point count is a Super Stock value.


If you do read that first paragraph again, it states that they “should check with their local CASC-OR representative….”. Also, in the FIRST line of the prep section 1., it states that any “questions concerning rules clarifications should be directed to the CASC-OR Solo 2 Director.” An offending competitor could ask his peers – 150 of them, if he felt so inclined, but the ONE person he would need to ask would be the Solo Director. That did not happen. When I asked the Solo Director after the protest had been tabled, I was told that mine was the first such request.
This ignores that fact that most of the “peers” you mention that they did not agree with his interpretation of the rules. The Chief Scrutineer’s job is unrelated to points and prep levels. He had no official position to rule on a car mod, unless it related to safety. At that point, his responsibility would be restricted to whether or not the mod was safe or not.

-when it says "should check" "should be directed" it's a recommendation NOT a requirement by the competitor

-he doesn't HAVE to ask the director or anyone if he doesn't want to..

-where in the rule book does it say ask the SOLO II DIRECTOR? it only states you SHOULD check with the CASC-or Representative (the rule book doesn't say who the representitive is, just lists the committee members and their title

-the Chief Scrutineer's job is described here (see 3.2 General standards A & B)

then check out 4.3 K regarding the inpound and inspection of a vehicle and who is responsible for verifying a car (guess who)

page 4-7 and 4-8


throughout this "silly thread" I did not say anyone is wrong, at fault, or to blame.. I'm just trying to promote that when it comes to protests and difficult situations there is a need for a clear answer we need to follow the rule book literally.

that's the only way to be consistent

some have lost interest in this protest and how the process worked, that's totally fine, and I apologize if you've clicked on this thread.. and said "still?? "

poeple would agree that there is a legal loophole for forced induction cars in SS the way the rules are currently written.

But the facts remain that the vehicle/driver that went through the process
did nothing unauthorized or illegal according to the litteral text of our existing rule book.

on a last note/question:

1) even if the driver verified with the CASC-OR REPRESENTITIVE to verify the rule book, does this mean he is immune to a protest?

2) if the vehicle in question was a Normally Aspirated vehicle, would adding an IC make any difference

hope the answer was the same

[Pete@Marcor]

Q2) in this definition, does the "air cleaner assembly" include
everything between the throttle body to the air flow/mass sensor

A: yes

Yes, it includes everything that is originally installed in the vehicle, between the throttle body and the MAF.


Q5) with vehicles so equipped, does the rule book state what items
you can swap in place of the duct work between the throttle body to the
air flow/mass sensor?

A: nope

So, are you suggesting now that an intercooler is an “alternate air cleaner assembly”?
Is it not true that in rule 6.3.D, it says, in bold, I might add, that “Assume that if the rules does not specifically say you can, then you can’t.” So, since it does not state what the rule SPECIFICALLY allows, I would ask my CASC-OR representative on the CAC Technical Committee. If I did not specifically know who that was, I would ask the Solo 2 Director.


-when it says "should check" "should be directed" it's a recommendation NOT a requirement by the competitor

-he doesn't HAVE to ask the director or anyone if he doesn't want to..

I agree with you totally. Not a single competitor MUST consult the Solo Director, or even follow the car prep point schedule. However, they will subject to the penalties and ramifications of their actions. We are not baby-sitting competitors. If they want to bolt on a supercharger and a turbo system, and completely gut their interior, they certainly have the right to do so. But, if those points total enough to force them into SP or MOD, they will be required to run there, and be scored in the appropriate class.
Can you even begin to imagine the uproar that would exist if the rulebook stated that every competitor MUST consult the Solo Director before performing any mods?


-where in the rule book does it say ask the SOLO II DIRECTOR? it only states you SHOULD check with the CASC-or Representative (the rule book doesn't say who the representitive is, just lists the committee members and their title

Well, to mention it again, the FIRST paragraph of the rulebook’s prep section, Section 1, which is on page 9 of the pdf online version. It says “Effective January 01, 2005….. Questions concerning rules clarifications should be directed to the CASC-OR Solo 2 Director.”


On a last note/question:

1) even if the driver verified with the CASC-OR REPRESENTITIVE to verify the rule book, does this mean he is immune to a protest?

Of course not. As you know, every competitor has the right to protest. We wouldn’t want to limit that ability, would we? But, if he has gotten clarification ahead of time from the Solo 2 Director, and possibly advice from the CAC Tech Committee, it is pretty likely that he would either win the protest, or have it overturned when he does appeal. Since this competitor did not do either of those, he did not go as far as he could have in protecting himself.

2) if the vehicle in question was a Normally Aspirated vehicle, would adding an IC make any difference

hope the answer was the same

It would, if I were asked to rule upon it. He STILL would be charged the 2 points extra. An air-to-air intercooler probably would not have too much benefit, but an air to cold water one probably would. Still, we do not charge points based upon their effectiveness. That is the responsibility of the competitor actually doing those mods, to see if the gains justify the points.

In hindsight, I think that all of this could have been avoided. As per Section 6.1.G, since the competitor did not have the factory repair manual at the event site, he could have been excluded. That would have avoided all of this.

[finboy]

since the 2006 schedule is posted..

what about the findings for 2005's protests?

is that it? any updates??