ATTENTION IN THE PITS Rule Change Deadline September 1

[38flattie]

Pedro, I agree! 

I'll get the first round!

[NathanStewart]

I don't understand. The rulebook clearly states "any" ignition, seems simple to me.

It must be true for it's written in the rule book.  Seems simple to me too.  The rule book also clearly states that hood scoops are for unblown vehicles only but there's a particular turbocharged VW pickup truck with a rear facing hood scoop that's been setting records for years.  How can that be if hood scoops are only allowed on unblown vehicles?  Who decides if a vehicle that's clearly illegal by the black and white wording in the book is still able to set records?  Do certain rules only apply to certain competitors?  How does one know which rules apply to them? 

Or is it that we maybe know that saying that only unblown cars can have hood scoops is kinda ridiculous and the true intent of the rule, regardless of the words in the book, isn't to prohibit the use of hood scoops on blown cars?  Which is king: intent or printed word?

As for vintage engines, rule 2.Q is pretty clear in that computers aren't allowed on vintage engines and rule 2 under 2.A.1 also says no computers.  So, there are two very specific points in the book that say no computers on vintage engines in vintage bodies.  Seems simple to me - the words are black and white and they say no computers.  Oh but there is that one sentence that says "any" ignition may be used.  Well gee, that's a bit of a conflict isn't it?  Or maybe it's that any ignition may be used so long as it isn't a computer like 2.Q and 2.A.1/2 says.  How will we ever know?  Everyone with their opinion seems to think they know but I think you really can't go wrong to ask the person who wrote those rules what they're meant to mean.  That's what the committee chairs are for aren't they? 

To save everyone the suspense of wondering what was really meant to be, it's that computers aren't allowed!  If we're really going to follow what one sentence says against two other sentences that clearly spell out a requirement in the contrary, then I presume that those who have set records illegally (including turbocharged vehicles with hood scoops) will rightfully rescind their records.  After all, we should all be judged from the same book as it is written, right? 
 

[Sumner]

I just don't get the hood-scoop quandary either.  It doesn't apply to us at the moment but if an unblown car can have a hood scoop that goes to withing 1/2 inch of the windshield why does a blown car's hood scoop have to stop at the cowl.  Why can't the unblown one stop 1/2 inch from the windshield also?

If one is drawing air from the high pressure area by the windshield then why also have a forward facing scoop like Nathan showed in one post.  Maybe choose one or the other if that is the case, but I have no problem with someone doing whatever in that respect and you could show that you are 'scooping' air from both locations.

When John and I designed (John built it) the one on Hooley's car I felt it was legal at the time.  I don't remember the current confusing wording.  Of course we made it a functional working air scoop with a designed input area, but also made it an aero device which is/was allowed in comp coupe.

I'd say make the wording apply to hood scoops regardless of if they are blown, unblown, comp coup or any other car and not let the blown ones fall under streamling when that doesn't apply to a number of blown cars anyway.

Now I can't expect much since I didn't partake in sending in a new/modified rule wording  .  I guess I'm lazy since it doesn't apply to us anymore.  We will cover the carb hat and tubing to it at some point, but it won't go past the cowl.

This will be interesting to follow.

On the ignition thing the 'any ignition' does open the door to the possibility of some very sophisticated ignition systems using coil on plug that could easily surpass the abilities of something like an MSD box,

Sum

[V4F STR 60]

I don't understand. The rulebook clearly states "any" ignition, seems simple to me.

As for vintage engines, rule 2.Q is pretty clear in that computers aren't allowed on vintage engines and rule 2 under 2.A.1 also says no computers.  So, there are two very specific points in the book that say no computers on vintage engines in vintage bodies.  Seems simple to me - the words are black and white and they say no computers.  Oh but there is that one sentence that says "any" ignition may be used.  Well gee, that's a bit of a conflict isn't it?  Or maybe it's that any ignition may be used so long as it isn't a computer like 2.Q and 2.A.1/2 says.  How will we ever know?  Everyone with their opinion seems to think they know but I think you really can't go wrong to ask the person who wrote those rules what they're meant to mean.  That's what the committee chairs are for aren't they? 

To save everyone the suspense of wondering what was really meant to be, it's that computers aren't allowed!

As I said in the rule change form I submitted, this ongoing issue (since 2009 in our case) simply needs to be put to bed once and for all.  There is no bigger buzz kill than being in impound and being told you might be protested over something you have been told is legal for six straight years.  From what I understand, the board, not the committee chair has the final say, and it seems as though the two are at odds with each other regarding the interpretation of this rule.  Indeed, the board wouldn't even vote on the rule last year.  A simple wording change, with a compromise addressing your and your dad's concern regarding digital ignition boxes, would easily solve the problem and we can simply all move on once and for all.  No one is right or wrong on this, and digging our heels in obviously isn't working too well.  The issue lies in the simple fact that over the years several competitors have been told that their digital ignition boxes were indeed legal.  This includes approval from your dad, the committee chair, when he visited out pits with DW in 2009.  So, the real issue is, as you point out, the interpretation of the rules.  Obviously, you clearly see it one way, and others see it, and have been told, another.   The rule simply needs to be written so that your concerns regarding digital ignitions are addressed.  A very simple, very easy compromise will finally put this to rest so we can focus on what's important... drinking beer 

[38flattie]

The rule change proposals went out to the clubs and members last night, so we'll see what happens now.