Engine classes

[panic]

Clarity of language is always a praiseworthy goal, but the existing rules have a large inertia factor: why change something that all present competitors understand?

Not to be rude, but the purpose of a rule is so that no one's opinion matters, and you don't need to ask.

[Tman]

Tooooooo many people reading shit into the rules!!!!!!!

Pete

Fixed it for you PJ

[Peter Jack]

 

Pete

[lsrjunkie]

And it's the "clarity of language" that got me to asking questions. In my mind if an engine was designed in 1959 but not available until '61 or '62 it would be ok. Based solely on how the rule for that class reads. Better to know now, as opposed to sitting in tech and finding out the hard way.

[trimmers]

Nobody's trying to be a lawyer on this, but rather to understand what the rule really means.

Perhaps they intended to exclude engines that were introduced in 1960 or later model cars, and perhaps that's the way it's been interpreted in the past.  However, that's not what the rule actually says. 

If they want the rule to mean something other than what it says, then they should change the rule so that it actually says what they mean.  Period.  Otherwise somebody's going to interpret it based on what it actually says.   

I'll add this one to my list of things to submit for clarification.

[dw230]

"XO class consists of inline overhead valve (OHV), inline flathead and flathead V8 (except Ford & Mercury) and V-12 passenger car and pickup truck(or the same engine design family, 4.N) engines, 1959 or earlier design, up to 325 original cid. In the spirit of the class, XO engines shall typically be those run at the Southern California Dry Lakes in the 1940s and early 1950s. Examples include Chevrolet, GMC, Hudson, Packard, Buick, Lincoln and Cadillac.  Foreign engines are NOT included."

You have to read the complete rule, not just what you want. I fail to understand where, in bold print, it mentions an engine design which competed as new in a '60s car is legal.

DW

[Stan Back]

Time has shown that reading is easier than comprehending.  About four years ago a guy pre-entered a XO/Street Roadster with a 331" Chrysler.  I gave him a call.  Let alone it was a bit oversized, but I questioned if it was, indeed, an inline (say Imperial?).  Nope.  It was a hemi.  Had the car done and showed up and competed as a C and I think he's been back every year, allbeit with later Mopar engines.

[Tman]

But these threads DO make for some fun entertainment!

[lsrjunkie]

They sure do! Everyone's interpretation of how things are said or worded seems to be different. Wether it's about racing rules, or what your wife or girlfriend asked you to do!

[trimmers]

"XO class consists of inline overhead valve (OHV), inline flathead and flathead V8 (except Ford & Mercury) and V-12 passenger car and pickup truck(or the same engine design family, 4.N) engines, 1959 or earlier design, up to 325 original cid. In the spirit of the class, XO engines shall typically be those run at the Southern California Dry Lakes in the 1940s and early 1950s. Examples include Chevrolet, GMC, Hudson, Packard, Buick, Lincoln and Cadillac.  Foreign engines are NOT included."

You have to read the complete rule, not just what you want. I fail to understand where, in bold print, it mentions an engine design which competed as new in a '60s car is legal.

You're obviously correct, but the problem is that the rule contradicts itself.  Does one part of the rule take precedence over the other?  If so, which one?  If it was really intended to limit vintage engines to 1940's and early 1950's types, that's fine, but then why doesn't it just say "1955 or earlier design", instead of "1959"?    How are the uninitiated, who are reading the rule book for the first time, supposed to know where the line is really being drawn?  If this rule, and some other confusing ones, were re-written, then the problems could be eliminated.  But of course that would deprive us of the fun of arguing about it here.

The point is that the rule is currently written leaves room for misinterpretations.       

[Peter Jack]

The point is that the rule is currently written leaves room for misinterpretations.       

Only if you want it to!

Pete

[BobDcuda]

OK, sorry, but I gotta chime back in here.  Dan, thanks for pointing out the phrase that was added to the 2012 rulebook. That is a helpful addition and should make a new entrant take pause before showing up with a slant 6 to run XO.  But, back to lawyer-speak, saying "XO engines shall typically be..."  The word "typical" to me leaves wiggle room for someone trying to read something else into the rule; an expensive mistake if not researched further.  It means there could be something else besides what was run in the 1940's and 1950's.

Notice that all the posts here arguing against changing that one word "design" have 4 or 5 stars by their name.  The ones suggesting more clarity are the newer members trying to get some clarity.  Yes, the senior members/old timers know exactly what the intent and application of the rule is.  But for a newcomer wanting to build one of those Ford or Mopar inbetweeners, they're likely to be going around in circles for a while before they figure out what's what.

Again, just changing that one word "design" to "production" or "model year" would end all this chatter.   

[Glen]

Crying towel's are available in the impound (Warnerville)

[jl222]

  At least...Horns don't have to be capable of starting engines anymore

                 JL222

[panic]

I think it's important to note that comprehension of the rule as it appears today is not a function of IQ, engineering competence or general literacy. This is not a "you can't fix stupid" problem at all.
People who have already dealt with the rules cannot proofread what is in essence their own work - I certainly can't. I still find poor spelling, grammar, awkward language etc. in my own work that I've already read at least 100 times.

Tell the truth: don't we all wince when someone "discovers" that early OHV V8 engines should be legal in XO, and it has to be explained at length? Wouldn't that be easier if the last XO sentence said: "Specifically prohibited are all OHV V8 engines regardless of construction date, and OHV L6 engines first manufactured for the 1960 model year and later" (note the comma)?

However: I have an advantage - I was chained to a desk in the Supreme Court of NY (Civil Branch) for decades, and just to relieve the tedium I began to pick up patterns of how "obvious" language meant luxury vs. bankruptcy.
The placement of commas, semi-colons etc. are life and death, and there are places in the existing rules where the exact use of punctuation both helps first-time comprehension, and reinforces any protest after the fact.